Government is all about power and control. In fact, most organizations have these concepts at their core. No surprise there.
Sometimes, some government measures work. For instance, the great 19th century strides that resulted in granting socio-economic rights to industrial workers, hitherto abused by a ruthless bourgeoisie. That’s one clear example where the State stepped in and sided, all in the name of social tranquility or peace, with the many against the few.
Other times, government intervention only makes matters worse, far worse than they were in the beginning.
To an all powerful government, especially today, given the technological advances in crowd control, population monitoring, enhanced surveillance, and whatnot, nothing is more dangerous than a challenge to its unlimited power and control.
Especially when such a challenge comes from its citizens, who do not wish to have more power, but only enough agency in their lives to be able to cope with the stressors of their existence.
In short, the government wants only to retain and increase its already destructive and overwhelming power. While the people only wish they were left alone, to their own non-destructive devices.
The conflict is nowhere more apparent than in the case of gun control.
Gun control is not new on government’s agenda. The first tentative attempts to curb civilian ownership of arms started under the Roman Empire. The rich were of course somewhat exempted from the plight of the populace who was supposed, then as now, to make do with the protection afforded by the mighty state.
Disarming civilians was a common theme throughout the Middle Ages in Europe. Most kings and potentates imposed certain restrictions on wearing a sword, dagger, or using a bow, a longbow, etc. They usually made such impositions exclusively on the vulgar strata of the society. Noblemen were exempted, as were the rich town folk.
The Church followed suit by banning the use of crossbows against Christians, deemed ungodly, under Canon 29 of the Second Lateran Council of 1139. But that was more of an attempt at restricting a new technology that felled kings at the hands of cooks, than it was the work of the State disenfranchising the people.
With the advent of firearms, especially by the 17th and 18th centuries, English common-law started seeing the first attempts at restricting the use of firearms first to Protestants, by dispossessing Catholics. Later on, English gun control moved on to disenfranchise the poor, by introducing other strenuous requirements.
The founding of the United States of America was one of those syncopes that arrested the march of the forces trying to restrict or ban civilian ownership of firearms, especially in the context of the War of Independence, and its 1789 Constitution’s famous 2nd Amendment (2A).
But between then and now, Governments worldwide went on an offensive to limit and confine ownership of firearms to the agents of the State. They kept on repeating in all the languages of the Earth, that guns kill people, and that people do not need guns to feel safe, to hunt, to enjoy a sport, or just to collect.
‘You are a Bad man’, said they, if you ever showed an inclination to beg to differ.
So, in time, people around the world ended up conditioned against guns. They started conflating guns with violence, but always, always stopped short of thinking/saying aloud that the biggest purveyor of violence in the world is never the small criminal entrepreneur.
The biggest single threat to life and limb on this planet of ours is the Government, because, ladies and gents, it is they who own the most, best, more powerful lethal guns. It is not Mrs. and Mr. Everybody. Nowadays, civilian gun control is so strong that normal people cannot purchase a handgun in most of the countries. But State Agents and Criminals continue to enjoy front row seats to the best guns money can buy. Not you and I, though. No, senor. We are deemed unsafe to own such firearms. Lest we may get some ideas. I do not have a clue what ideas we could get.
But maybe I am short sighted like that.
On the other hand, criminals do not give a fig about gun control. Case in point.
I live in a nice tranquil government city in lower Quebec, Canada. Gun control is so strong in this country, that people can no longer purchase handguns. Yet, criminals do not have such limitations. Nor do they show any qualms breaking the law. They are criminals, you see.
Only this morning, a hitman opened fire at a private dwelling some 700 yards from where I live, a mere three blocks away. Nobody was hurt. But still it shattered two illusions.
- Our neighbourhood is a nice safe place to live.
- Gun control works.
Where were the police then? Police are not here to protect and serve us. They are here to deter, frighten, and subdue people. They exist to investigate crime after the fact. They are here to make chalk outlines on the pavement and collect evidence from the crime scene.
If you expect protection from the government, you are mistaken. Government is here to impose its will on the populace. And it works, like criminals, through violence or the threat of violence.
The only difference between them is that private crime is illegal while state can get away with murder. They are the ones who make up the laws. Of course they do.
Götterdämmerung 